Revised Smithing Talent draft using Set 3

[shonuff]

Feedback appreciated.

Talent: Smithing

Prerequisite: Appropriate Focus – Dex (Tanning), Dex (Fletching), Str (Smithing Weapons), Str (Smithing Armor). The talent must be restarted at the Novice level for a different crafting type.

Novice: May reroll a crafting result but must keep result of second roll. May create Masterwork items with a maximum of +1 to each category. May create items with a maximum of 1 rune slot. May craft items using Tier 0 or Tier 1 materials.

Journeyman: May create Masterwork items with a maximum of +2 to each category. May create items with a maximum of 2 rune slots. May create items with Tier 2 materials.

Master: May create Masterwork items with a maximum of +3 to each category. May create items with a maximum of 3 rune slots. May create items using Tier 3 materials.

A tier of materials is based on the talent benefit provided (eg, for weapons – Tier 0: iron and steel; Tier 1: veridum and silverite; Tier 2: dragonbone and white steel; Tier 3: volcanic aurum and star-metal). Any character can work Tier 0, but the Smithing talent is required to craft Tier 1-3.

Crafting time/cost is to be based on the cost of the item constructed. The base cost for any item is 50% of the purchase value of the regular version of the item. Each rune slot adds the base cost of the item again (eg, a light lance base cost is 12 SP so the crafting base cost is 6 SP, while a light lance with 3 rune slots would be 24 SP).

Furthermore, for masterwork items, each + adds the base cost again in materials (so a masterwork light lance with +1 attack would be 12 SP; a light lance with +3 attack/+3 damage would be 42 SP; a light lance with +3 attack/+3 damage and 3 rune slots would be 60 SP).

For a final cost of items crafted using easily acquired materials, elm would have a cost multiplier of .75x. Iron, Ash, and Leather would have a cost multiplier of 1x. Steel and Yew would have a cost multiplier of 1.25x. Superior materials would have a cost of 1.5x (in addition to the cost/acquisition of the actual rare materials).
So the light lance with +3attack/+3 damage and 3 rune slots would cost 60 SP to make if Iron, 75 SP if steel, and 90 SP if superior materials were used (plus the dragon bone, veridium, etc.).

The crafting time would take the final cost of the item, and divide by 10 for the number of work days it would require to craft.

If a character fails a smithing roll, ½ of the material is wasted and must be repurchased. If the dragon die result is a 1, the failure is catastrophic and nothing is salvageable. If the smithing roll is successful and the dragon die is a 6, something good happens (no idea yet). The TN for a smithing roll is….. something. Maybe uniform, maybe dependent on what quality level is being done.

There would also be a change to leathers – Drakeskin would remain the same. I would add Dragonwing as a Tier 2 material with AP improvement +1/AR Bonus +1, and Dragonskin would improve to Tier 3, with +2 AP Improvement/+2 AR Bonus.

[Pytorb]

Good stuff. A couple of quibbles though I'm afraid.

This is a smithing talent yet you are talking about wooden weapons and leather armour as well as metal. I think this talent needs splitting into either Smithing, Carpentry & Tanner/Leatherworker or into Weaponsmith (all materials) and Armoursmith (all materials). Given the characters that the Warden meets in the CRPG I'd be tempted to go with the latter.

Also I don't think wood can take runes. If that's the case you might want to mention it in the rules.

[shonuff]

Yeah. It's actually four different talents that would have the same basic rules. I don't know about combining the armors and the weapons, though. In my mind, they'd require different abilities and skills.

Also I don't think wood can take runes. If that's the case you might want to mention it in the rules.

Ooo... good point. Forgot about that. However, is that rule carrying over? I just checked Set 3, and I didn't see anything specifically prohibiting bows from having runes (although that certainly was true in the CRPG).

[Pytorb]

My apologies, I missed the bit about prerequisites. My first quibble is withdrawn.

Don't know, I was just reflecting the CRPG. You could make it more difficult for wood to take runes e.g. Journeyman for 1 and Master for 2 or even just Master for 1. By allowing bows to have runes the question of does a rune on a bow empower the arrow with that ability needs to be answered. A rune of striking would work just as well regardless, as arguably would a rune of devestation, but does a rune of elements (fire) on a bow mean that an arrow bursts into flame as it leaves the bow? Undoubtedly cool but is it DA?

[shonuff]

My apologies, I missed the bit about prerequisites. My first quibble is withdrawn.

You mean you missed something in that wall of text?

Don't know, I was just reflecting the CRPG. You could make it more difficult for wood to take runes e.g. Journeyman for 1 and Master for 2 or even just Master for 1. By allowing bows to have runes the question of does a rune on a bow empower the arrow with that ability needs to be answered. A rune of striking would work just as well regardless, as arguably would a rune of devestation, but does a rune of elements (fire) on a bow mean that an arrow bursts into flame as it leaves the bow? Undoubtedly cool but is it DA?

Honestly, no idea. I was thinking that bows could take runes in DA, until you mentioned that they couldn't... and then I was all "Oh, yeah, they couldn't take runes." However, in the P&P RPG, I would assume that bows can take runes, if only because ranged attacks are weaker overall than melee, IMO.

[Pytorb]

You mean you missed something in that wall of text?

I'm guilty of far worse walls of text in the SIF forum... Perhaps renaming the talent from Smithing to 'Crafting, Weapons or Armour' might help highlight that the rules cover a lot more than just metal weapons amd armour.

Honestly, no idea. I was thinking that bows could take runes in DA, until you mentioned that they couldn't... and then I was all "Oh, yeah, they couldn't take runes." However, in the P&P RPG, I would assume that bows can take runes, if only because ranged attacks are weaker overall than melee, IMO.

I think adding runes to bows is a great idea. I'm just uncertain how well it would work for all of the ones currently listed, especially as Fire Arrows are a seperate item in the CRPG. A new rune, rune of distance could be a great addition for bows (and thrown weapons).

[shonuff]

Yeah, they would have their own individual name. I was just lazy. Haha.

Maybe it could be as simple as elemental runes can't be added to bows as they affect the flight dynamic (or some such). No muss. No fuss. Or a fire rune could stack with a fire arrow, but then what about a frost rune and fire arrow? Hmmmm... Maybe back to the original point of no elemental runes on bows.

[empyrien]

Hey shonuff, here's a couple of thoughts based on a first read.

Firstly, the costs for construction seem way too low. I'd start by having a look at the cost for materials to make poisons (which are a consumable item) and I'd say you want to be multiplying them by at least a factor of 10 to 100 to get an idea of the materials cost for a permanent superior/masterwork item.

Secondly, I think constructing a masterwork item should be an advanced test rather than a single roll, again based off a comparison to the poison making rules. In game time these things should take days (or weeks at the high end) to construct. You could still incorporate the consequences of failure.

I would also remove the reroll from the novice ablity.

[shonuff]

Firstly, the costs for construction seem way too low. I'd start by having a look at the cost for materials to make poisons (which are a consumable item) and I'd say you want to be multiplying them by at least a factor of 10 to 100 to get an idea of the materials cost for a permanent superior/masterwork item.

Yeah, I thought about the cost a bit. The issue I have is that I have a hard time justifying increasing the cost (too much) to make a superior quality weapon. The finest steel is still steel. If you wanted to throw in gems or something, that would greatly increase the cost (for a communication score increase), but I couldn't see adding too much for just balance.

Secondly, I think constructing a masterwork item should be an advanced test rather than a single roll, again based off a comparison to the poison making rules. In game time these things should take days (or weeks at the high end) to construct. You could still incorporate the consequences of failure.

An advanced test sounds good. And using my system, a PC can make 2 daggers a day (might be a bit low -- I've never made a dagger) to about 20 days for a maxed 2-handed sword.

I would also remove the reroll from the novice ablity.

LOL. But every talent has a reroll!

[empyrien]

Yeah, I thought about the cost a bit. The issue I have is that I have a hard time justifying increasing the cost (too much) to make a superior quality weapon. The finest steel is still steel. If you wanted to throw in gems or something, that would greatly increase the cost (for a communication score increase), but I couldn't see adding too much for just balance.

You make a good point. My suggestion then would to limit the number of bonuses a given material can take. So each +1 to hit or +1 damage or rune slot counts as a bonus, so a +3 to hit/+3 to damage weapon would have a "quality level" of 6. So you assign to each material the maximum quality level an item can be that is made of that material. Given that there are roughly 9 material types I'd go with an increase of +1 quality level per material type upgrade. Then you can justify each material having a significant increase in the material cost multiplier and those uber weapons have an appropriate monetary cost.

LOL. But every talent has a reroll!

Maybe move it to Master then.

[shonuff]

Maybe not as individual materials, but maybe again as tiers. Increasing by material seems too drawn out, IMO. What about Tier 0: 2, Tier 1: 3, Tier 2: 6, Tier 3: 9.

Maybe increase prices for later tiers, although I find that difficult to justify... the material components of a veridium long sword would be the same as the material components for a dragonbone long sword (except for the dragon bone and veridium... which my costs didn't cover regardless).

And moving the reroll to Master level would probably make more sense, overall.

[Loswaith]

...
An advanced test sounds good. And using my system, a PC can make 2 daggers a day (might be a bit low -- I've never made a dagger) to about 20 days for a maxed 2-handed sword. ...

Typicallly speaking to make a decent sword (something that will last longer than a few battles) takes about 40+ hours, so a dagger could be churned out in likely 10-15. However it's hard to nail down actual times because rarely did a single person do all the work, nor were records of times it took to do each individual stage particularly well kept.

[empyrien]

Maybe not as individual materials, but maybe again as tiers. Increasing by material seems too drawn out, IMO. What about Tier 0: 2, Tier 1: 3, Tier 2: 6, Tier 3: 9.

That could work as well, and fits in a bit better with the way the materials are divided in your talent. I would drop the Tier 0 max to 1 bonus though.

It is still not clear to me whether you are keeping the RAW superior benefits for materials.

Maybe increase prices for later tiers, although I find that difficult to justify... the material components of a veridium long sword would be the same as the material components for a dragonbone long sword (except for the dragon bone and veridium... which my costs didn't cover regardless).

Okay, I'm a bit confused now. Are you dividing the cost into "consumables" that go into the forging of the item and the cost of item materials itself? In either case, I think there is plenty of justification for increasing the costs as the material increases in quality. From the books it is made clear that dragonbone requires an extremely hot forge to work for example, and superior materials would correspondingly require superior consumables to be used in the process of making the item.

The bottom line is, if the PCs want to forge a Starfang-like sword, they better be paying out hundreds of gold in materials.

[shonuff]

Typicallly speaking to make a decent sword (something that will last longer than a few battles) takes about 40+ hours, so a dagger could be churned out in likely 10-15. However it's hard to nail down actual times because rarely did a single person do all the work, nor were records of times it took to do each individual stage particularly well kept.

So... cost divided by 5, then? That would mean a regular dagger could be made in about a day, whereas a masterwork star axe with 3 runes would take a little under a month.

That could work as well, and fits in a bit better with the way the materials are divided in your talent. I would drop the Tier 0 max to 1 bonus though.

Possibly... the CRPGs had some well made steel weapons, IIRC. I might wait to see keep it (relatively) in line with officially released GR material.

It is still not clear to me whether you are keeping the RAW superior benefits for materials.

Definitely the strength reduction, but really, it's IMO it's a moot point. Any character having an uber weapon is most likely going to have a good strength score (and meet the requirement) and have the appropriate talent/focus. I feel like I can use them or not, and it will make no statistical difference.

But honestly I'll probably drop them and just stick with the simpler +'s for superior material.

Okay, I'm a bit confused now. Are you dividing the cost into "consumables" that go into the forging of the item and the cost of item materials itself? In either case, I think there is plenty of justification for increasing the costs as the material increases in quality. From the books it is made clear that dragonbone requires an extremely hot forge to work for example, and superior materials would correspondingly require superior consumables to be used in the process of making the item.

The bottom line is, if the PCs want to forge a Starfang-like sword, they better be paying out hundreds of gold in materials.

Sort of... Basically, I'm grouping the consumables and cost of common materials into one. Starfang, for example, while made out of star-metal, wouldn't be entirely star-metal. There would be wood, iron, leather, steel as well. And you're right that heating a forge would be more expensive, but it wouldn't be that much more expensive (or maybe it would... haha).

Basically, I'm assuming that the common materials and consumables to make a veridium longsword would be about the same to make a star-metal one (again excluding the cost of the veridium or the star-metal). Or at least close enough that the rules would require much more detail than I feel goes into a game.

As for Starfang, if a PC were to make it (and the star-metal was possessed), I don't think it would cost hundreds of gold to make. However, the superior materials are where the real cost/questing comes into play.

[empyrien]

So... cost divided by 5, then? That would mean a regular dagger could be made in about a day, whereas a masterwork star axe with 3 runes would take a little under a month.

If you were using advanced tests then the idea would be to set a success threshold and then say each test takes X hours and hence the number of tests it takes to exceed the threshold determines how long the item takes to create.

Obviously the more powerful an item is the higher the TN for each test and the higher the success threshold should be.

And you're right that heating a forge would be more expensive, but it wouldn't be that much more expensive (or maybe it would... haha).

The dragonbone forge described in Dragon Age: The Calling sounds a lot more expensive than your run of the mill forge.

Basically, I'm assuming that the common materials and consumables to make a veridium longsword would be about the same to make a star-metal one (again excluding the cost of the veridium or the star-metal). Or at least close enough that the rules would require much more detail than I feel goes into a game.

I have some smithing experience, and there are lots of intricacies involved with the specifics of the materials you are working with. Okay, so maybe you just want to keep a regular pommel, hilt and cross guard on your starmetal sword, but you can bet that the flux/quenching materials/forge fuel and equipment costs are going to be specific to that type of metal.

As for Starfang, if a PC were to make it (and the star-metal was possessed), I don't think it would cost hundreds of gold to make. However, the superior materials are where the real cost/questing comes into play.

As long as the effort is commensurate with the quality of the weapon, that is fine. Materials like starmetal should be quested for rather than bought, but the point is that they are "valued" appropriately. Even if the PCs already possessed sufficient starmetal to forge Starfang through a difficult quest, I still feel they should be contributing 25+ gold towards the construction cost.

Dragon Age is a fairly "low magic" setting; masterwork/magical items should be rare and prized possessions. Whatever system you use, the most important thing is to impress upon the players the true value of their items.

[Loswaith]

Having crafting based around a monetary value can help working out a crafting system as you can set a 'monetary value' to a days work (or any other unit of time). Then taking a base material value each days work adds to that value untill you have the listed price of the item, thus indicating the item is completed, and incedentially how long it took to make.

So better quality items of similar materials would actually take longer to make because it would take longer to hit the items cost, which makes allot of sence. While better materials would likely take longer to craft because of their inherrant value/difficulity to work.

If you also add crafter skill to the mix, by increasing the value of the days work comparitivly you actually get the result that a craftsman with a higer skill can actually make things faster than their lesser skilled collegue could.

Incedentially I made a system using this princable for warhammer (WFRP), and it actually works out very well, for a little added complexity.

[shonuff]

If you were using advanced tests then the idea would be to set a success threshold and then say each test takes X hours and hence the number of tests it takes to exceed the threshold determines how long the item takes to create.

Obviously the more powerful an item is the higher the TN for each test and the higher the success threshold should be.

Right, but basically IDing a TN to achieve would be item value/5 for the number of days. The effects of failure will have to be factored in.... number/severity of failures before materials are consumed.

The dragonbone forge described in Dragon Age: The Calling sounds a lot more expensive than your run of the mill forge.

t's been a while... I don't recall the forge. Also, my price system would assume you had all necessary tools, as well.

I have some smithing experience, and there are lots of intricacies involved with the specifics of the materials you are working with. Okay, so maybe you just want to keep a regular pommel, hilt and cross guard on your starmetal sword, but you can bet that the flux/quenching materials/forge fuel and equipment costs are going to be specific to that type of metal.

I could see that, but without knowing specifics, it is difficult to assign values. Also, too many rules and caveats would, IMO, bog the system down.

As long as the effort is commensurate with the quality of the weapon, that is fine. Materials like starmetal should be quested for rather than bought, but the point is that they are "valued" appropriately. Even if the PCs already possessed sufficient starmetal to forge Starfang through a difficult quest, I still feel they should be contributing 25+ gold towards the construction cost.

While they might have to contribute a good amount in total, this is only in regards to the actual physical construction costs. Diamond in the hilt? Extra. Correct forge? Extra. Specific tools? Extra.

Dragon Age is a fairly "low magic" setting; masterwork/magical items should be rare and prized possessions. Whatever system you use, the most important thing is to impress upon the players the true value of their items.

It's also a "low money" game... so a little money goes a LOONNNGGGG way.

[shonuff]

Having crafting based around a monetary value can help working out a crafting system as you can set a 'monetary value' to a days work (or any other unit of time). Then taking a base material value each days work adds to that value untill you have the listed price of the item, thus indicating the item is completed, and incedentially how long it took to make.

So...
constructed item value/5 = x (approximate construction time)
x*11 = TN
Each roll = 1 work day
2 consecutive rolls where modified roll is <14 constitutes an item failure. Half of materials are consumed in failure. If Dragon Die on one of the failure rolls was a 1, then all materials are lost.

[empyrien]

I could see that, but without knowing specifics, it is difficult to assign values. Also, too many rules and caveats would, IMO, bog the system down.

Well, I wasn't suggesting an itemised list -- rather that there is plenty of justification to fudge some multipliers so that better quality items cost more in consumables as well. You can still keep it simple.

It's also a "low money" game... so a little money goes a LOONNNGGGG way.

At higher levels I think players should have a reasonable amount of money, judging from the poison making rules and the monthly incomes from the Titles section of the Set 3 playtest.

[shonuff]

True. I would just have trouble justifying a large cost for a small portion of a weapon/suit of armor. To me, it just seems like costing money to cost money, unless there is a valid reason for the added expense. Needing an expensive forge would justify an increased cost, but IMO, that would be a separate expense.

[Grumm]

Just a thought, but just being able to pay out of pocket for some materials seems a little wrong to me. Much like with the dragonscale armor in DA:O, acquiring some of these materials should/could be the basis for a quest in and of itself.

Imagine: the party hearing rumors of a star that fell in the nearby mountains, them hunting for days or even weeks, only to find that the site of the impact is home to a dangerous creature or two (or that the meteor has already been claimed by someone, perhaps for sinister purposes...). It would be far more memorable than "The materials cost 1000 gold".

Not that this would be necessary for all materials, of course; iron, steel, perhaps even red steel, and elm, ash, yew, perhaps even whitewood, could still be common enough to be purchased (though the latter metal/wood still rare enough that a supplier must be found, taking some time).

[shonuff]

Exactly. It might be unclear, but this is for the base materials only. A dragonbones sword, for example, is not going to be purely dragonbone. There would be leather, steel, etc., along with the fuel for the forge and other consumables. These proposed prices are assuming you already have the rare materials.

I would also go so far to say that (under my system) only Tier 0 materials would be purchaseable -- your common woods, metal, and leather.

[Grumm]

Ah, gotcha.

It's slightly unclear, as you only mention the 'cost/acquisition of the actual rare materials'. Having the word 'cost' in there implies that they could be purchased... though I could see how the purchase of some of them could lead to entire quest-lines (perhaps the party finds someone who is selling ironbark, they purchase some, only to be attacked by a group of dalish who believe them to be part of the raiders who have been pillaging their forests...).

It might be better to eliminate the word 'cost' and state that rare materials cannot be purchased.

Just noticed something else. The rules for failure seem okay for lower-tier stuff, but I can see people getting upset if they finally manage to acquire some dragon scales after slaying a dragon, having lost two party members in the process, only to have the smith botch the smithing roll and destroy the scales. Perhaps at master level a failed roll only ever results in a partial loss of materials?

[shonuff]

The way I would personally use it is that the rare materials would be indestructible. You're right that it would suck to go on a huge quest for x material just to botch a roll.